No.12 2013 American Review Global Perspectives on AMERICA / MAY–AUG 2013 / ISSUE 12
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
American Review GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA American renewal Clyde Prestowitz on how the shale gas revolution is a global game changer PLUS Megan MacKenzie on women in combat John Lee on the new China myth Steven Hayward on Barack Obama’s brown climate agenda No.12 2013 American Review GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA / MAY–AUG 2013 / ISSUE 12 American Opinion 5 Containment versus prevention Tom Switzer What the Boston terror and the North Korean nuclear tests mean 10 Paradox of Pakistan Anatol Lieven The perils of close security ties between Washington and Islamabad 16 The downside to globalisation Richard C. Longworth What ails the new white underclass in Middle America Cover Story 20 Don’t write off America (again) AMErican Clyde Prestowitz RENEwal A former high-profile pessimist does a volte face on US economic decline 28 The Pentagon’s gender U-turn Megan H. MacKenzie An afterword to the author’s groundbreaking article on women in combat in the distinguished Foreign Affairs magazine American 2 Review American Review GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA / MAY–AUG 2013 / ISSUE 12 Cover Story 37 Obama won’t lead on climate change Steven F. Hayward Prospects for a legally binding and enforceable post-Kyoto global treaty are zero 46 The new China myth John Lee Flirting with Beijing does not amount to snubbing Australia’s great and powerful friend 54 Marshall Green’s legacy James Curran A leading diplomat knew that America should play the role of stabiliser, not crusader, in the Asia-Pacific Book Reviews 66 The future world Ramesh Thakur Few dare mention that America could well be number two soon — but it’s highly likely 71 A Burkean guide for Republicans Greg Melleuish Eighteenth century principles are not much help for slaying the federal Leviathan American 3 Review American Review GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA / MAY–AUG 2013 / ISSUE 12 Book Reviews 76 Detroit haunts the American mind Jonathan Bradley But can the once industrial powerhouse of the Midwest make a comeback? 81 Decentralise military power Martin Morse Wooster How American business paved the way for victory in the war 86 Contributors www.americanreviewmag.com American Review is a quarterly magazine published by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. Editor: Tom Switzer / Founding editor: Minh Bui Jones / Business manager: Sean Gallagher Sub-editor: Jonathan Bradley / Production editor: Susan Beale The views represented in this journal are not necessarily those of the United States Studies Centre. The publisher takes reasonable care of any material submitted but accepts no responsibility for errors, omissions, or the consequences thereof. Contributors are encouraged to contact the editor first. Correspondence should be addressed to Tom Switzer, [email protected] or American Review, United States Studies Centre, Institute Building (H03), City Road, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form without the prior consent of the United States Studies Centre ISSN 1837-3038 American 4 Review AmericanOPINION Tom Switzer Spectre of 9/11 haunts America Prevention is justified against terrorists, but containment works against rogue states This year is already a reminder of two important security lessons of the post-9/11 era: that heightened defences against very real terrorist threats in the US remain necessary; and that the twin strategy of containment and deterrence remains the most effective way of dealing with rogue states. Start with the Boston terror attack on 14 April, which claimed three lives and more than 170 injuries. At the time of writing, US officials do not know what motivated the Tsarnaev brothers who are believed to have planted bombs along the finish line of the world famous marathon. What is clear is that this was an act of terrorism, and the price of enjoying everyday life in tourist venues, sports stadiums, shopping centres, and even a fun run is constant vigilance. True, as the distinguished journalist Doyle McManus has observed, both the number of terrorist attacks and the number of deaths from terrorism in the US have declined since the attacks on the Pentagon and the twin towers. Moreover, the kind of mass terrorism that September 11 appeared to herald — a wave of bombings in public places — simply has not happened. McManus approvingly points to the thesis of Ohio State political scientist John Mueller: Americans are more likely to die by drowning in a bathtub than from a terrorist attack, even after Boston. American 5 Review AmericanOPINION Tom Switzer Nonetheless, there has been good reason for the US to toughen up plans to combat terrorism — from hardening airports and ports at home to tackling extremists abroad, specifically in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and North Africa. Although al Qaeda has been on the run across the globe, home-grown terrorists — such as Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani- American who tried to explode a car bomb in downtown Manhattan three years ago — are lurking in the American midst. According to the New York Police Department, at least 16 terrorist plots against the city have been foiled. The lesson is that constant vigilance and pre-emptive surveillance remain justified. There are, of course, risks and dangers involved: Washington has spent billions of dollars on homeland security, some of which has surely been wasted; some detentions and arrests have been unwarranted; and the government’s practice of torture has yielded mixed results at best and genuine human rights abuses at worst. Still, the message of Boston is that heightened defences against terrorist threats are in order a decade since September 11. Which brings me to the other post-9/11 security lesson that has coincided with the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq: how to deal with rogue states. In recent months, North Korea has tested a third nuclear bomb, fired a missile into orbit, threatened a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland and South Korea, renounced the Korean war armistice of 60 years ago and signalled that it will restart its Yongbyon nuclear reactor to produce more plutonium for bombs. What accounts for the North’s actions? Opinion among North Korea watchers varies. Many scholars think Kim Jong-un is trying to establish his bona fides in Pyongyang; some think he may be a reckless gambler intent on upsetting the natural balance of power in the region; others say it’s just bluff and bluster. The most plausible explanation is American 6 Review AmericanOPINION Tom Switzer that the supreme leader of the Hermit Kingdom is trying to get the West’s attention and extract economic concessions from the North’s adversaries, just as his grandfather and father did in 1994 and 2005, respectively. Whatever the explanation, President Barack Obama has been right to distinguish himself from his two immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and shun direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Instead, he is beefing up the US defence measures against North Korea. Specifically, his decision in late March to send two B-2 stealth bombers and an Aegis destroyer over South Korea was prudent. Meanwhile, there has been hardly any serious call for a preventive war or even pre-emptive strikes against the North’s nuclear reactors. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a leading voice of neo-conservatism and cheerleader of the Iraq liberation a decade ago, recently argued: “Young Kim needs to understand that starting a war will mean nothing short of his and his regime’s extinction”. This is in striking contrast to the atmosphere of 2002–03 when prevention was the accepted wisdom in Washington. After September 11, it was confidently predicted that the twin pillars of national security policy during the Cold War — containment and deterrence — no longer worked against those rogue states that comprised the so-called “axis of evil” (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the mullahs’ Iran, and Kim Jong-il’s North Korea). As President Bush insisted in 2002: “After September 11, the doctrine of containment just doesn’t hold any water as far as I’m concerned.” Today, as the US and its allies respond to the threat posed by North Korea, it is clear that containment still has merit. If Kim lobbed some short-range missiles at South Korea, he would invite massive retaliation. Of course, China remains the key to resolving the crisis. Although it supplies most of the North’s energy and about two-thirds of its food and American 7 Review AmericanOPINION Tom Switzer humanitarian aid, it is running out of patience with what some Chinese officials call “the little upstart”. From Beijing’s perspective, however, a collapsed North Korean state or even a peaceful Korean reunification raises two serious threats to Chinese security: a flood of refugees into north-east China as well as an expanded US strategic orbit in what Beijing perceives as its sphere of influence. In these circumstances, several American opinion leaders and former policymakers are calling on Washington to assuage Beijing’s concerns. That means indicating to China that the US would try to prevent or mitigate a refugee crisis and refrain from positioning forces along the Yalu River. At this stage, Beijing will probably hedge its bets and continue to prop up the regime rather than accept Korean reunification. “If Kim lobbed some short-range missiles at South Korea, he would invite massive retaliation.” Meanwhile, the twin strategy of containment and deterrence is keeping in check the impoverished and isolated state. And although there is always a danger that Kim won’t act rationally and may miscalculate, it is worth remembering that there has never been a full-scale war between two countries with nuclear weapons.